OK, on first blush we at FAUXRUMORS were as astonished by the 15 year DiPietro deal as almost all others. We were told to expect a long term deal, as much as 10 years, but never in our wildest dreams did we see this coming. Like all others we also thought what is this guy (Wang) thinking? Is he nuts?
Well, he probably is based upon other moves and statements he's made over the years, but is this particular move really all that bad?
The key will be how well DiPietro plays. If he's merely a mediocre goalie over the next 3-5 years, then this deal will be considered a huge bust. However, even if that should occur there is an out for Wang.
That is, if he's willing to eat some of that money to buy some cap space. Hear us out here: Lets say DiPietro sucks toast in 4 years. Well, all Wang has to do is ship him off to the AHL to ride busses and the Isles are saved his 4.5 mil on the cap.(Wang still has to pay him)
If Ricky decides he doesn't want to ride the busses, or retire, then both the Isles and Wang are off the hook.
However, if DiPietro should finally develop into a top 5 goalie then this deal is a brilliant piece of work. Renegotiation is NOT allowed! Lets say that in 5 years Ricky is a Vezina trophy winner, he could very well be in the bottom half of salaries paid to goalies with no recourse to change this.
If after another 5 years DiPietro begins to wane, they still have the AHL option available. Therefore, this contract is only a gamble in as much as Wang is willing to eat the contract should it not work out.
Definitely not as 'Dippy' as many are making it out to be.
We’ve moved!
15 years ago
8 comments:
Same issue Choch. If they deem he isn't good enough to start or too expensive cap-wise to back up they will still have the demotion option. As stated in the original post it all will depend if Wang would be willing to 'eat' the contract? So far he has been unwilling to do that with Yashin
Oh don't confuse our take here 'Rainbow as meaning we believe that Wang is sane.
He clearly isn't, but this contract isn't nearly as insane as some of his other moves that you outlined
Well, FLA, it may turn out to be a coach killer if Ricky doesn't play up to potential, but the GM is safe for now. The GM Is the owner, and the owner the GM! Snow is little more than a figure head, especially in regard to important matters
Incorrect 'Hockeyfan, if DiPietro is sent down and clears wavers( Unliley a team would try to get him even at 1/2 his salry commitment) his salary does NOT count agaonst the cap
Only players signed to multi year deals and over 35 are counted if sent down in the second and subsequent years of their deals
Your forgetting about the fact that there are provisions in both the CBA as well as the SPC which hold a teams ownership accountable for attempted circumvention of the contracts.
"(c) The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to
investigate the circumstances under which a Player is placed, or remains, on the Non-
Roster List. If the Commissioner has reason to believe that Non-Roster status has not
been utilized properly by the involved Club, or that requests to designate a Player as Non-
Roster are or were in any way improper, or if he determines that the Club has used the
Non-Roster List to evade the Active Roster limit or otherwise Circumvent any provision
of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club as he deems
appropriate."
This is from the CBA regarding non-roster players. That is exactly what DP would be in the case of him not being with the NHL team. Regardless of whether or not he clears standard waivers and return waivers he still becomes a non-roster player and would be subject to the scrutiny of the league commish. As we all know the NHL front office was not happy about this deal in the first place, so it's likely that anything that even appears to be shady would be investigated.
Then there is the language in the CBA regarding NHL/NHLPA grievances. The SPC provides language that a player cannot be demoted without just cause, this is outside of the language that defines injured players as well as conditioning stints. A team that demotes a player without just cause actually has to ASK that player for permission. Barring DP's permission the clubs option at that point would be to suspend him and face the grievance and subsequent arbitrators ruling.
This is unlikely to happen because unlike an arbitrators decision during a hearing regarding the amount to be paid which takes into account comperable play and existing contracts. The club would have to prove that DP isn't playing at a level which befits an NHL goaltender, he would NOT have to be playing up to the level of another goaltender earning his salary range, but just be performing as well no worse than 3rd within the Islanders roster ( which would is not a likely scenario as they are unlikely to sign anyone much better than him in the future due their both their unwillingness to sign a comperable talent and his comperable salary, and for the reason that it's likely that no legitimate starting goalie would likely want to come to a team where he has virtually no shot of taking over the starters position)
As long as DP plays as well as any backup goalie in the league it's a 95% chance that the arbitrator will rule that the demotion is a circumvention of the SPC and therefore give the NHL a valid reason to enforce sanctions against the parent club.
This could be as simple as not allowing him to be demoted, allowing the demotion with the cap hit or fines which would be heavier than the cap hit would be.
In any case, no legitimate businessman truly ever turns his back on the agency or regulatory body which governs all aspects of his business.
The circumvention clause in the CBA was written for exactly such as dealing as this contract. A friend of mine at the NHLPA told me that legal has been pouring over this contract because they know it will be challenged in the future. The common belief within the league is that it's intended purpose was to circumvent the contract and that neither side believes that he will indeed play for 15 years. This is akin to players taking payments after they retire, "restructuring" the pay. But as this is no longer a possibility due to the language of the CBA, this loophole exists until either the following CBA is negotiated or when this particular contract comes into question. Which ever will come first.
Nothing can be done about it until such a time as the Islanders make a move like sending him to the minors.
Then the chips shall fall, and it will be just another in a long line of Islanders "mishaps".
Your forgetting about the fact that there are provisions in both the CBA as well as the SPC which hold a teams ownership accountable for attempted circumvention of the contracts.
"(c) The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to
investigate the circumstances under which a Player is placed, or remains, on the Non-
Roster List. If the Commissioner has reason to believe that Non-Roster status has not
been utilized properly by the involved Club, or that requests to designate a Player as Non-
Roster are or were in any way improper, or if he determines that the Club has used the
Non-Roster List to evade the Active Roster limit or otherwise Circumvent any provision
of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club as he deems
appropriate."
This is from the CBA regarding non-roster players. That is exactly what DP would be in the case of him not being with the NHL team. Regardless of whether or not he clears standard waivers and return waivers he still becomes a non-roster player and would be subject to the scrutiny of the league commish. As we all know the NHL front office was not happy about this deal in the first place, so it's likely that anything that even appears to be shady would be investigated.
Then there is the language in the CBA regarding NHL/NHLPA grievances. The SPC provides language that a player cannot be demoted without just cause, this is outside of the language that defines injured players as well as conditioning stints. A team that demotes a player without just cause actually has to ASK that player for permission. Barring DP's permission the clubs option at that point would be to suspend him and face the grievance and subsequent arbitrators ruling.
This is unlikely to happen because unlike an arbitrators decision during a hearing regarding the amount to be paid which takes into account comperable play and existing contracts. The club would have to prove that DP isn't playing at a level which befits an NHL goaltender, he would NOT have to be playing up to the level of another goaltender earning his salary range, but just be performing as well no worse than 3rd within the Islanders roster ( which would is not a likely scenario as they are unlikely to sign anyone much better than him in the future due their both their unwillingness to sign a comperable talent and his comperable salary, and for the reason that it's likely that no legitimate starting goalie would likely want to come to a team where he has virtually no shot of taking over the starters position)
As long as DP plays as well as any backup goalie in the league it's a 95% chance that the arbitrator will rule that the demotion is a circumvention of the SPC and therefore give the NHL a valid reason to enforce sanctions against the parent club.
This could be as simple as not allowing him to be demoted, allowing the demotion with the cap hit or fines which would be heavier than the cap hit would be.
In any case, no legitimate businessman truly ever turns his back on the agency or regulatory body which governs all aspects of his business.
The circumvention clause in the CBA was written for exactly such as dealing as this contract. A friend of mine at the NHLPA told me that legal has been pouring over this contract because they know it will be challenged in the future. The common belief within the league is that it's intended purpose was to circumvent the contract and that neither side believes that he will indeed play for 15 years. This is akin to players taking payments after they retire, "restructuring" the pay. But as this is no longer a possibility due to the language of the CBA, this loophole exists until either the following CBA is negotiated or when this particular contract comes into question. Which ever will come first.
Nothing can be done about it until such a time as the Islanders make a move like sending him to the minors.
Then the chips shall fall, and it will be just another in a long line of Islanders "mishaps".
Your forgetting about the fact that there are provisions in both the CBA as well as the SPC which hold a teams ownership accountable for attempted circumvention of the contracts.
"(c) The Commissioner may take whatever steps he deems necessary to
investigate the circumstances under which a Player is placed, or remains, on the Non-
Roster List. If the Commissioner has reason to believe that Non-Roster status has not
been utilized properly by the involved Club, or that requests to designate a Player as Non-
Roster are or were in any way improper, or if he determines that the Club has used the
Non-Roster List to evade the Active Roster limit or otherwise Circumvent any provision
of this Agreement, he may take such disciplinary action against the Club as he deems
appropriate."
This is from the CBA regarding non-roster players. That is exactly what DP would be in the case of him not being with the NHL team. Regardless of whether or not he clears standard waivers and return waivers he still becomes a non-roster player and would be subject to the scrutiny of the league commish. As we all know the NHL front office was not happy about this deal in the first place, so it's likely that anything that even appears to be shady would be investigated.
Then there is the language in the CBA regarding NHL/NHLPA grievances. The SPC provides language that a player cannot be demoted without just cause, this is outside of the language that defines injured players as well as conditioning stints. A team that demotes a player without just cause actually has to ASK that player for permission. Barring DP's permission the clubs option at that point would be to suspend him and face the grievance and subsequent arbitrators ruling.
This is unlikely to happen because unlike an arbitrators decision during a hearing regarding the amount to be paid which takes into account comperable play and existing contracts. The club would have to prove that DP isn't playing at a level which befits an NHL goaltender, he would NOT have to be playing up to the level of another goaltender earning his salary range, but just be performing as well no worse than 3rd within the Islanders roster ( which would is not a likely scenario as they are unlikely to sign anyone much better than him in the future due their both their unwillingness to sign a comperable talent and his comperable salary, and for the reason that it's likely that no legitimate starting goalie would likely want to come to a team where he has virtually no shot of taking over the starters position)
As long as DP plays as well as any backup goalie in the league it's a 95% chance that the arbitrator will rule that the demotion is a circumvention of the SPC and therefore give the NHL a valid reason to enforce sanctions against the parent club.
This could be as simple as not allowing him to be demoted, allowing the demotion with the cap hit or fines which would be heavier than the cap hit would be.
In any case, no legitimate businessman truly ever turns his back on the agency or regulatory body which governs all aspects of his business.
The circumvention clause in the CBA was written for exactly such as dealing as this contract. A friend of mine at the NHLPA told me that legal has been pouring over this contract because they know it will be challenged in the future. The common belief within the league is that it's intended purpose was to circumvent the contract and that neither side believes that he will indeed play for 15 years. This is akin to players taking payments after they retire, "restructuring" the pay. But as this is no longer a possibility due to the language of the CBA, this loophole exists until either the following CBA is negotiated or when this particular contract comes into question. Which ever will come first.
Nothing can be done about it until such a time as the Islanders make a move like sending him to the minors.
Then the chips shall fall, and it will be just another in a long line of Islanders "mishaps".
Interestig that our site doesn't allow 'Anonymous' postings, yet some how this one was printed in triplicate.
We have a theory how/why this occured, but rest assured our people are on the case and will expose why.
Post a Comment